Debate on Shia role in Ahmadi persecution – by Ali Abbas Taj

In his recent article in ET, Pervez Hoodbhoy talks about Shia and Ahmadi persecution in Pakistan.

I don’t agree entirely with the article and differ with many of Hoodbhoy’s hypotheses:

1. That Shias are now a ‘minority’ implies this is now a Shia-Sunni conflict. It is not. It is extremist Deobandis attacking Shias.

2. His statement that “Shias had joined Sunnis … to declare Ahmadis non-Muslim” is incorrect and unsupported by any facts, e.g. names of Shia groups or ulama who thus “joined.”

3. He says that the situation in Kurram and Hangu is two-way Shia-Sunni killing. Again it is a case of false neutrality and misrepresentation.

4. And then he sweeps it under the carpet by saying ” …. Shias are numerous enough to put up a defence.” Of course, Shias are not numerous or strong enough to save themselves from an ongoing genocide by those who are institutionally trained and supported by the Jihad Enterprise.

Another important fact that is generally overlooked – including by Hoodbhoy – is that while Shias are under attack by an extremist Deobandi fringe supported by the military, Ahmadis’ attackers also include the otherwise moderate Barelvi sect.

Debate on facebook

The debate on Shia role in Ahmadi persecution has also proliferated to facebook groups. In one such group, a Shia friend thus presented his views:

No Shia scholar was consulted by the parliament in 1974. The one Shia scholar, Hafiz Kifayat Hussain, who was consulted by the Munir Commission in 1954 limited his input to Shia viewpoint on Hazrat Muhammad ibne Abdullah (sawas) being the Last Prophet, without apostatizing Ahmadis or any one else.

Some friends stated thatnot one shia alim condemned or protested the ahmediya mosque massacre of 2010, is not true. Maulana Raja Nasir Abbas, Secretary General of Majlis-e Wahdat-e Muslimeen (MWM), a major group of Pakistani Shia ulama and intellectuals, issued a statement condemning the attacks in Model Town and Garhi Shahu the same Friday they occurred.

Shia ulama have spoken not just against cruelty perpetrated on Ahmadis, but any of the ‘mustazaaf’ (oppressed) communities in Pakistan.

Shia view on kufr (apostasy) or eimaan (faith) of any person is clear, and that is that only Allah or those authorized by Him can determine who is, and who is not, a kaafir. According to Shia faith, it is not for the parliament of any country or for any religious scholar – Shia or otherwise – to decree who is or who is not a Muslim. Rather attempting to do so shall be an attempt to intervene in an exclusively Divine prerogative, and thus itself a polytheist act according to Shia viewpoint.

During my search of the Internet, I found this saddening fact: on the official website of the Ahmadiyya community, it is stated in an official document that Shias, naudbillah, believe in the divinity of Hazrat Ali (a.s) and in his, naudbillah, being superior to the Holy Prophet Muhammad ibne Abdullah (sawas). It is such falsehood and slander that has become the basis of killing of thousands of Shia Muslims in Pakistan by brainwashed terrorists.

However, to my knowledge, no Shia religious scholar (Ayatollah or Mujtahid) (barring any orator or zakir) ever did takfeer of the Ahmadiyya community. No Shia scholar has ever responded in coin to this slander by the Ahmadiyya community and not protested against their own takfeer in an official document of the Ahmadiyya community. Or shall we be proven big hearted only if we rose in defence of the community that openly and officially attacked our status as Muslims.

For the record, Shias are not a minority sect as compared to those who have attacked them, i.e. a lunatic fringe of Deobandi sect. Rather their attackers are a minority.

In Shia Islam anyone who claims to be a Muslim has to be accepted as one! All Infallible Imams (AS) of the Progeny of Prophet Mohammad (SAW) and the theologists and scholars who follow in their footsteps accept this! If any speaker from Shia School says anything different than he/she is a fitnah monger not a scholar!

It is a part of Shia faith that no temporal authority has the right to determine eimaan or kufr of any person. That applies to the second amendment to the constitution of Pakistan as well.

However, is it not a bit rich that a community that officially did takfeer of Shia Muslims prior to the passing of the second amendment, a takfeer that has never been returned in coin by any Shia scholar, would remain unsatisfied until those whose takfeer it has done protest against its own takfeer through the second amendment?

(Counter-view: pleae read carefully “belief of other sects…” in the Ahmadi document, it quotes from sunni books labelling shias and others kafirs- quoted by jamat that not to open pandora box. It was to tell the assembly members that each sect had at one time or the other (except) ahmedis have called each other kafir and that should not be the basis of deciding-)

Marvi Sirmed
@AbdulNishapuri Nor do we find any speeches against anti-Ahmadi campagn. Doesn’t prove Shias were not part of that campaign. @AliAbbasTaj
a day ago

Ali Taj
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri Also you may ask the victims of the 1952 Anti Ahmadya riots. Answer there attackers were not Shia
a day ago

Abdul Nishapuri
@AliAbbasTaj @marvisirmed Agha Poya & Hafiz Kifayat were two prominent Shia scholars during 1950s and 60s. No anti-Ahmadi speeches by them.
a day ago

Ali Taj
@marvisirmed @AbdulNishapuri Haffiz Kafayat Hussain speeches published, never a word against Ahmadyia. He did testify on Prophet Last.
a day ago

…………

Appendix: Ahmadi Muslims’ Fatwa against all other Muslim sect (Unfortunately similar fatwas are found in almost all other sects which do not help the cause of the unity of the oppressed.)http://ahmadiyya.org/qadis/takfir1.htm

Unlike Ahmadiyya Islam, Shia Muslims do not have an authority structure centralized in one specific person or organization.

Irfan Abdi marhoom is a Shia orator (Zakir) not a scholar (Shia Mujtahid or Ayatolllah). Orators speak to make money, they are not authorized to issue fatwas.

Nobody is claiming that one or two or more Shia mullahs did not participate in the anti-Ahmadiyya movement. They must be identified and condemned. The point to consider is that the action of one or two Shias who participated in Sunni-led anti-Ahmadiyya movement cannot be attributed to entire Shia community. Shia community committed only one crime, i.e., silence, same crime which they themselves are experiencing on hundreds of Shia massacres from 1960s onwards.

An opinion piece in The Express Tribune “Run for your life” by Dr Pervez Hoodhboy on March 5, 2012 read:

This essay deliberately excludes Hindus, Christians, and Parsis. The reason: these communities were never enthused about India’s partition (even though some individual members pretended to be)…

First of all, bravo Dr Hoodbhoy for such a brave article on the injustices faced by the non-Muslim Pakistanis in the name of religion.

While Dr Hoodbhoy painted a factual picture on the general state of affairs, he conveniently made some very disturbing assumptions on behalf of people, that to date, are fighting for their right of “Pakistaniyat” just as Shias or Ahmadis, thanks to the Pakistan studies books we were fed on.

With all due respect sir, I expected better of you.

I would be surprised if you had not heard of Mr Jogendra Nath Mandal and his role in the freedom struggle. A leader of the scheduled castes, he ‘enthusiastically’ fought for the cause of Pakistan along with the Muslim League, convinced that Jinnah’s Pakistan was a superior ideology than ‘MaBharata’. Born in Bengal, he was chosen to be Pakistan’s first Minister of Law and Labour— but is now a forgotten Hindu.

Mr SP Singha was the speaker of the Punjab Assembly when the resolution for Pakistan was moved. Short of three votes he ‘enthusiastically’ rallied the Christian members to vote in favour of Jinnah. Muslim League won, resulting in the inclusion of several populations near Sialkot, Chunia, Kasur etc. in present day Pakistan. Singha died a Pakistan “enthusiast” Christian -conveniently ignored.

And who can forget Samuel Martin Burke? He was the magistrate of the Election Petition Commission of Punjab in 1945 who moved 16 petitions in favour of Muslim League, all to the chagrin of Congress and Sir Hayat’s Unionists who wanted a United India. These petitions eventually won Pakistan’s case, and after partition Mr Burke chose Pakistan as his native country.

To date, he is revered as a pioneer of Pakistan’s foreign policy. As Pakistan’s High Commissioner to Canada, he is accredited to convincing USA and Canada of Pakistan’s need of nuclear reactors. Mr Burke passed away as a Non Muslim Pakistan “enthusiast”. Ignored again.

These are, but a few names that shared Jinnah’s dream of Pakistan and were instrumental in leading thousands of Hindus and Christians to join the cause. Whoever thinks that it’s only the Muslims who migrated on that glorious night of August 13, 1947, needs a history lesson. Several thousands of non-Muslims left the Ganges behind believing that Pakistan was their true calling – my family included.

Where is it that we have fallen short of patriotism or denied service to our country? Christian, Hindu and Parsi soldiers have fought and accepted martyrdom as recently as the operations in Swat. They have been both war heroes and prisoners, enduring harrowing tortures for the country. Who can forget the Cecil, Cyril, Anthony Chaudhrys, Mervyn Middlecoats, Peter Christies, Brig Golwalas, Nazir Latifs, Justin Sharafs and many other like them who answered the call of Labaik?

Since independence, missionary schools and hospitals have opened their doors to every Pakistani without difference. According to recent stats only 2.1 percent of the total Christian population has immigrated abroad, the rest stayed put. So where is it you see that we were never enthusiastic about the creation of Pakistan?

I am sorry Sir, but please don’t insult us by assuming that we, as a community, were never better than frozen poultry that was waiting to be re-branded as “minority” Pakistanis rather than “minority” Indians. Not from you sir…not from you.

From about the year 1911 Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad (second khalifa of the Qadiani Movement) started to put forward the doctrine that it is not sufficient for a person to declare belief in the Kalima Shahada in order to be a Muslim because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had now appeared as a prophet and belief in him must be acknowledged as well.

According to Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, it is no longer sufficient for the existing Muslims to believe in the Holy Prophet Muhammad and all the prophets before him. Now they must also declare that they believe in the prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as well. Otherwise they cannot remain Muslims but become just like those Jews and Christians who believed in the previous prophets but failed to accept the Holy Prophet Muhammad.

Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote a book A’inah-i Sadaqat, published in 1921, which was translated into English and first published in 1924 under the title The Truth about the Split. In this book, while acknowledging his beliefs, he writes:

“(3) the belief that all those so-called Muslims who have not entered into his [i.e. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s] Bai’at formally, wherever they may be, are Kafirs and outside the pale of Islam, even though they may not have heard the name of the Promised Messiah. That these beliefs have my full concurrence, I readily admit.”

— The Truth about the Split, Rabwah, 1965, pp. 55–56. The 2007 edition of this book is available on the Qadiani website from the link http://www.alislam.org/books/. See page 56 for this extract.

See original Urdu text below from the book A’inah-i Sadaqat [Urdu 1].

In this book, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad also gives a summary of his first article expressing these views which had earlier appeared in April 1911. He writes regarding this article:

“The article was elaborately entitled — ‘A Muslim is one who believes in all the messengers of God.’ The title itself is sufficient to show that the article was not meant to prove merely that ‘those who did not accept the Promised Messiah were deniers of the Promised Messiah’. Its object rather was to demonstrate that those who did not believe in the Promised Messiah were not Muslims.”

“Regarding the main subject of my article, I wrote that as we believed the Promised Messiah to be one of the prophets of God, we could not possibly regard his deniers as Muslims.” (pages 137–138 of 1965 edition; page 146 of online 2007 edition)

“…not only are those deemed to be Kafirs, who openly style the Promised Messiah as Kafir, and those who although they do not style him thus, decline still to accept his claim, but even those who, in their hearts, believe the Promised Messiah to be true, and do not even deny him with their tongues, but hesitate to enter into his Bai’at, have here been adjudged to be Kafirs.” (pages 139–140 of 1965 edition; page 148 of online 2007 edition)

“And lastly, it was argued from a verse of the Holy Quran that such people as had failed to recognise the Promised Messiah as a Rasul even if they called him a righteous person with their tongues, were yet veritable Kafirs.” (p. 140 of 1965 edition; page 148 of online 2007 edition)

See original Urdu text below from the book A’inah-i Sadaqat [Urdu 2].

According to these views, the only Muslims in the whole world at any time are those who have taken the bai‘at of the Qadiani leader of the time. In the last quotation above, the closing words given as “veritable Kafirs” are “pakkay kafir” in the original Urdu book A’inah-i Sadaqat. The word pakkay conveys the significance of ‘real, true, absolute and full-fledged’, meaning that all other Muslims are kafir in the fullest sense without the least doubt.

Views of M. Mahmud Ahmad’s brother Bashir

For the views of Mirza Bashir Ahmad, younger brother of Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, see this link.
Qadianis disallow funeral prayers for other Muslims.

Since the Qadiani belief is that all Muslims outside their community are non-Muslims, just like a Christian or a Hindu is a non-Muslim, the Qadiani leader Mirza Mahmud Ahmad forbade his followers from saying the funeral prayers of other Muslims. This instruction is given by him quite clearly and forcefully in his book Anwar-i Khilafat, published October 1916. At the end of the section where he deals with this question, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad writes as follows:
“Now another question remains, that is, as non-Ahmadis are deniers of the Promised Messiah, this is why funeral prayers for them must not be offered, but if a young child of a non-Ahmadi dies, why should not his funeral prayers be offered? He did not call the Promised Messiah as kafir. I ask those who raise this question, that if this argument is correct, then why are not funeral prayers offered for the children of Hindus and Christians, and how many people say their funeral prayers? The fact is that, according to the Shariah, the religion of the child is the same as the religion of the parents. So a non-Ahmadi’s child is also a non-Ahmadi, and his funeral prayers must not be said. Then I say that as the child cannot be a sinner he does not need the funeral prayers; the child’s funeral is a prayer for his relatives, and they do not belong to us but are non-Ahmadis. This is why even the child’s funeral prayers must not be said. This leaves the question that if a man who believes Hazrat Mirza sahib to be true but has not yet taken the bai‘at, or is still thinking about joining Ahmadiyyat, and he dies in this condition, it is possible that God may not punish him. But the decisions of the Shariah are based on what is outwardly visible. So we must do the same thing in his case, and not offer funeral prayers for him.”

— Anwar-i Khilafat, page 93 of original edition; underlining is ours.
This book is available online at the Qadiani website in the collection Anwar-ul-‘Uloom, v. 3, no. 5 from the link http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/?j=3. See pages 150–151.

See original Urdu text below from the book Anwar-i Khilafat [Urdu 3].

It is quite clear and plain from these instructions that the Qadiani belief is that all other Muslims, including the children of those Muslims and even including those Muslims who believe in the truth of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad but have not taken the pledge to join the Movement, are unbelievers (kafir) and non-Muslims just as people of other religions such as Hindus and Christians.

Original Urdu texts of above quotations

Title page of first edition of A’inah-i Sadaqat:

Images below are from the online edition of A’inah-i Sadaqat at http://www.alislam.org/urdu/au/?j=6 (book no. 5). We have used red-lining to indicate the words being referred to.

Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad condemned the practice of Muslims declaring other Muslims as kafir. He wrote:

“O Maulvis (religious leaders)! will you not face death one day, that you are so bold and cunning as to declare a whole world as kafir? God says that if someone uses the greeting Assalamu Alaikum for you, do not say to him: ‘you are not a believer’, that is, you must not consider him a kafir because he is a Muslim. However, you have declared those as kafir who hold the same doctrinal beliefs as you, who follow the Qibla, who forsake the worship of anything other than God, who believe the way to salvation to be obedience to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him, and consider anyone who turns away from his obedience to be accursed and doomed to the fire of hell.” (Itmam-ul-Hujja, p. 23; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 8, p. 302–303)
“Today it is being tried to reduce the number of Muslims as much as possible and to expel them from the religion of Islam by the orders and fatwas of the Maulvis of an evil nature. Even if there are to be found in some people a thousand characteristics of Islam, all these are ignored, and some absurd and baseless excuse is found to declare them to be such kafirs as are further away from faith than even Hindus and Christians. … There are few enough Muslims already, do not reduce this small number even further.” (Izala Auham, p. 594–597; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 3, p. 421 and 422)
“It is a matter of amazement that a person who professes the Kalima, follows the Qibla, believes in One God, believes in and truly loves Allah and His Messenger, and believes in the Quran, should on account of some secondary difference be declared a kafir like Jews and Christians, in fact even a worse kafir. … Learned people know that there were great differences among the Companions of the Holy Prophet. There was none of them who did not have any difference. … But no one called anyone else as kafir.” (Ainah Kamalat Islam, p. 259; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 5, p. 258, 259)
“Is it not a matter of amazement that in such a delicate issue so much blatancy should be shown that while a man repeatedly declares that he belongs to the religion of Islam, and he openly clears himself of the false charges that are the basis of the allegation of unbelief, but still he is pronounced to be a kafir and people are urged that, despite the fact that he professes the Kalima ‘La ilaha ill-allah, Muhammad-ur Rasul-ullah’, believes in the Oneness of God and in the essential doctrines of Islam, adheres to prayer and fasting, and follows the Qibla, he is still a kafir.” (Ainah Kamalat Islam, p. 32; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 5, p. 32)
“Who does not know that it is a very delicate matter to declare as kafir someone who is a Muslim, believing in One God, and follows the Qibla, especially when that Muslim declares repeatedly by his writings and speeches that he is a Muslim, and that he believes in Allah and His Messenger and in the angels and books and messengers of Allah, be He glorified, and in life after death, as has been made manifest by the glorified Allah and His Messenger, on whom be peace and the blessings of Allah, in their teachings. Not only this, but he is also bound by all the commandments pertaining to fasting and prayer as explained by Allah and His Messenger, on whom be peace and the blessings of Allah. To declare such a Muslim as kafir, nay a great kafir and the Anti-Christ, cannot be the work of people who guard against evil and fear God and are in the habit of taking a charitable view of others.” (Ainah Kamalat Islam, p. 33; Ruhani Khaza’in, v. 5, p. 33)
Therefore, according to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a person fulfilling one of the basic requirements of a Muslim, for example, professing the Kalima, or facing the Muslim Qibla in prayer, etc., is a Muslim and cannot be declared a kafir.
His court declaration that he does not call Muslims as kafir

In February 1899, at the end of a court case between Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and one of his leading opponents, Maulvi Muhammad Husain Batalvi, the magistrate got each of them to sign a notice that he would not call the other kafir or antichrist Commenting on this, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote:
“ If he [Muhammad Husain] had been honest in issuing his fatwa, he should have said to the judge: ‘I certainly regard him as a kafir, and so I call him a kafir’.
Considering that till now, till the last part of my life, by the grace and favour of God I still hold those beliefs which Muhammad Husain has declared as kufr, what sort of honesty is it that, out of fear of the judge, he destroyed all his fatwas and affirmed before the judge that he would never again call me kafir, or dub me antichrist and a liar. One should reflect as to what greater disgrace there could be than this.

It is true that I also signed this notice. But by this signing, no blame attaches to me in the eyes of God and the just people, nor does such signing reflect any disgrace on me, because my belief from the beginning has been that no person becomes a kafir or antichrist by denying my claim. I do not apply the term kafir to any person who professes the Kalima, unless he makes himself a kafir by calling me a kafir and a liar. In this matter, it has always been my opponents who took the first step by calling me a kafir, and prepared a fatwa. I did not take the lead in preparing a fatwa against them. And they themselves admit that if I am a Muslim in the eyes of God, then by calling me a kafir the ruling of the Holy Prophet Muhammad against them is that they are kafir. So I do not call them kafir; rather it is by calling me kafir that they come under the judgment of the Holy Prophet. Therefore, if I have affirmed before Mr Dowie [the judge] that I shall not call them kafir, it is in fact my belief that I do not consider any Muslim to be a kafir. ”

— Tiryaq al-Qulub, published October 1902, pages 130-131

The following points emerge plainly from this extract:
The Promised Messiah never called any Muslim a kafir on the grounds of not believing in his claims.
It was when his Muslim opponents persisted in calling him kafir that he reminded them of the ruling of the Holy Prophet Muhammad that anyone calling a fellow-Muslim as kafir has the same epithet reflected back upon him. So it was the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s judgment against them which they brought on themselves.
When a Muslim opponent signed a declaration to the effect that he would stop calling Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as kafir, the Promised Messiah had no hesitation whatsoever in signing a similar declaration about his opponent.
The Promised Messiah repeatedly calls it “my belief” that a Muslim cannot be called a kafir for not believing in his claims.
The Promised Messiah wrote the above lines at a time which he himself describes as “till now, till the last part of my life”. Therefore it cannot be argued that he held this belief only at an early stage in his mission and changed it later on.
After the extract quoted above, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad goes on to write about his opponent:
“In short, the man who, after getting provoked without justification, declared me kafir and prepared a fatwa concerning me, to the effect that I was a kafir, antichrist and liar, showed no fear of the commandment of Almighty God as to why he was calling as kafir people who face the Qibla and profess the Kalima, and why he was expelling from the fold of Islam thousands of servants of God who follow the Book of Allah and manifest the basic practices of Islam. However, after a threat from the magistrate of the district, he accepted for all time never again to call them kafir, antichrist or liar.”
(p. 132)
According to the Promised Messiah here, to call as kafir and to expel from Islam those people who profess the Kalima and follow the basic Islamic practices, is to show no fear of God. The Qadiani movement’s calling other Muslims as kafir falls under this condemnation of the Promised Messiah.

Shame on the blogger for concocting the term “Zihad Enterprise.” Please use a term to refer to “violence Industry” that doesn’t hurt my feelings as a Muslim (and if you can’t understand why it does, please choose another subject matter for wasting the bandwidth). As for the rest of the article and the so-called research, it is all baloney and made-up. The blogger is obviously obsessed with minutiae of recent and contemporary sectarian history and his own first-hand “research” on t his topic. Unfortunately, the end-product is cacophony of baloney of random assertions, analysis devoid of basis (what about mean, motive, oppourtunity type of analysis), and unwarranted parallelism.

What is the complaint about Ahmadis declaring others kafir (not believing in what Ahmadis believe)? Do non-Ahmadis believe what Ahmadis believe? NO. Do they deny/disagree (kufr) with Ahmadi believes? Yes. So where is the problem? Kafir is simply Arabic for disagreement. Since when disagreement is a bad thing as long as it’s peaceful and does not incite on a crime?

Laiba, how does disagreement on beliefs, which is not a surprise btw, not help the cause of the unity of the oppressed? Problem is not disagreement but lack of tolerance for disagreement as you well know.

As for as Ahmadis considering other Muslims non-Muslim, it is a blatant lie. Anyone can see from the image of the page that Laiba has posted above the following sentence;

….چناچہ سب مسلمان بالاتفاق

(Trans: All Muslims unanimously…)

Now from this statement by the Khalifa, who is the sole authority, it is very clear that other sects are un-reservedly called and considered Muslim. If despite this clear proof from actual source anyone still claims otherwise then that person is clearly a blatant liar and one who is not interested in facts but in propaganda. Bottom line is in Ahmadi view anyone who calls/considers himself a Muslim is a Muslim which is according to the Islamic traditions.

We’ve had badgers, foxes and even skunks dig dens under our wooden shed. The plastic shed is a well appointed garden structure that comes in an array of design to make them attractive with tiny maintenance price for prolonged durability.

Dream Retreats pays great attention to grafting out the ground, to get an even bottom for the
pool in your Arizona backyard landscaping. It has been proven time
and time again that investing cash into anything that improves both the look of your home while increasing the relaxing outdoor atmosphere will only
increase your home. Many landscapers sell the idea of creating outdoor rooms in your backyard,
but it is very popular to apply this landscaping idea to the
front yard.

The second part of the program is where Josh Bezoni’s nutritional expertise really is. Whether you prefer it made with cream or broth, having soup before lunch and dinner is so satisfying it can reduce your daily calorie intake by as much as 20%. This isn’t the kind of
diet where you will feel hungry and deprived all the time, so motivation
should not be a huge problem.

We in addition provide suggestions on foods that you can eat and natural cures you need.
Pregnant women and nursing moms must keep away from this medication though because it has not yet been tested on them.

If you want to know about the online and offline marketing then please visit.
With the help of internet anybody from anywhere around the world can keep in touch with anyone.
And you may be accused of spamming which is something you never want to do.

Tips for Designing a Garden Pathway That’s Beautiful and Functional.
It’s a rather slow, methodical job, but can be done in a relaxed evening or two.
Birds will perch on them and pick at them, and this creates a hiding spot for them when they come to visit your yard.